9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect reading of Rule 10. Bare reading of the Rule shows, an assessee is entitled to abatement provided there has been no production in the factory for a continuous period of 15 days. The rule nowhere provides that continuous non-production of excisable goods should be during a given calendar month. There was no production in the factory of the assessee for a continuous period of 36 days. Therefore, claim of the assessee for abatement is fully justified. In favour of assessee - E/2161/2012 - A/957/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 9-8-2012 - Ajit Bharihoke, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sanjay Jain, DR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President (Oral)]. - This a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urer except that notified goods already produced before the commencement of said period may be removed within first two days of the said period :] Provided further that when the manufacturer intends to restart his production of notified goods, he shall inform to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, of the date from which he would restart production, whereupon the seal fixed on packing machines would be opened under the physical supervision of Superintendent of Central Excise. 3. Undisputed facts in the case are that the respondent is engaged in manufacture of Gutkha, an excisable item, under Chapter 24 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the request of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall not be entitled to benefit under Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty), Rules, 2008 of the above referred Rules, as such, he disallowed the abatement claim. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal against the order-in-original and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order accepted the plea of the respondent that since there was no production in the factory of the respondent w.e.f. 1st March 2011 till 5th April 2011 for a continuous period of 36 days, the respondent was entitled to abatement, as claimed, for first 5 days of April 2011 during which no production took place. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appeal by setting aside the order-in-or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
